|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 04 2023 19:50 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2023 16:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 15:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. Yeah but you also agree that this might not be practically viable some places for space reasons, so presumably a solution must be found there too.
Tbh I guess this is the euro in me speaking but personally I wish we just looked to Finland and normalized nudity instead. But in the US I'm guessing that is a bigger hurdle than turning every public locker room into single stalls.  Well I'm trying to stay open-minded, but I honestly can't think of why it would be a problem. Can you? If there was only space for, say, two changing rooms/stalls, then of course it would be more optimal to make each one private unisex / for anyone, instead of forcing one to be for men and the other for women (to save time if two men show up, or two women). I can't think of a situation, even space-wise, where allowing anyone to access a private stall is inferior to making it male-only or female-only, and no one has presented an example yet. (In regards to fitting/ changing/ locker rooms, not bathrooms/ urinals.) Space wise I think easiest would be showers - you will be hard pressed to find more efficient setting than (sex based) shared shower leading to shared changing room (basically bunch of lockers and a bench). Show nested quote +On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 02:13 BlackJack wrote:
@Rayzda yes, I forgot to mention that the other caveat for MTF athletes competing in women’s sports besides them not being allowed to win is that there needs to be locker room accommodations made for women that may not feel comfortable undressing in front of someone with a penis. Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I think you misrepresent the issue here - we not talking about penis phobia, but about women feeling vulnerable. Show nested quote +On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 02:13 BlackJack wrote:
@Rayzda yes, I forgot to mention that the other caveat for MTF athletes competing in women’s sports besides them not being allowed to win is that there needs to be locker room accommodations made for women that may not feel comfortable undressing in front of someone with a penis. Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Bolded - issue is not seeing somebody naked, but being naked in front of somebody of opposite sex. Another issue is that women toilets, showers, changing rooms are women safe spaces, by making all of them unisex, you effectively take them away from women.
I don't understand how any of these are relevant when anyone can just safely go into the private stalls. No one is forcing women to be vulnerable and get naked in front of men. (Please see the underlined portion of what I originally wrote.)
|
Northern Ireland23732 Posts
As pointed out we have rather a surfeit of women on this thread to give much insight on the issue.
That said rarely does the environment of bathrooms come up in terms of safety concerns come up in any of my conversations with women in my life. Bars, clubs, workplace environments and especially walking alone, more so if it’s night are the environments they don’t feel safe in.
While the bathroom issue is absolutely one worthwhile to discuss, it does strike me as something of a red herring via which to create ammo against the trans community.
If women’s safety was the primary point of concern, the aforementioned would feature just as, if not considerably more in certain discourse.
|
|
|
On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 02:13 BlackJack wrote:
@Rayzda yes, I forgot to mention that the other caveat for MTF athletes competing in women’s sports besides them not being allowed to win is that there needs to be locker room accommodations made for women that may not feel comfortable undressing in front of someone with a penis. Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed.
You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises.
|
I've witnessed numerous women with children intentionally avoid going into men's bathrooms to accompany/help their young sons - sometimes with disastrous results. The motivations may be varied but just food for thought.
On July 04 2023 23:35 JimmiC wrote:
Women’s rights or protection is just the excuse /justification because in public and out loud they do want to admit that it is hatred/fear of a group driving their behaviour. No one quit drinking bud light over bathroom concerns or the sanctity of women’s sports (which almost no one currently righting for them cares about and likely was fighting against women getting equal scholarships).
At some point instead of talking about the issue on made up terms to make them feel better we have to somehow get them to find the emotional issue they have because the logic is never consistent.
Sorry but who cares about Bud Light, at all, how's that relevant? Is that part of the potential legal questions here? Not drinking a specific beer is a hateful/fearful behavior in some way? I think we've moved as a society beyond caring what people drink in the privacy of their own homes.
On July 04 2023 21:34 WombaT wrote:
As pointed out we have rather a surfeit of women on this thread to give much insight on the issue.
That said rarely does the environment of bathrooms come up in terms of safety concerns come up in any of my conversations with women in my life. Bars, clubs, workplace environments and especially walking alone, more so if it’s night are the environments they don’t feel safe in.
While the bathroom issue is absolutely one worthwhile to discuss, it does strike me as something of a red herring via which to create ammo against the trans community.
If women’s safety was the primary point of concern, the aforementioned would feature just as, if not considerably more in certain discourse.
Those are all situations everyone agrees on and are places where harassment sexual and otherwise, and attacking people, are already illegal, making them not forefront political issues, whereas "trans issues" which weren't a question 100 or 50 years ago are suddenly very topical.
|
|
|
Joe Biden is nominating Trump's "Special Representative for Venezuela" (guy from the US directing the failed coup) to the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Prior to working for Trump the guy was part of the Iran-Contra scandal, a strong supporter of the US's illegal war in Iraq, and in charge of George Bush's campaign to extend 'democracy' abroad.
Other than Kissinger, there's not a whole lot of people with a worse record he could have chosen.
President Joe Biden announced Monday his intention to nominate a former appointee under former President Donald Trump with a controversial past in Latin America to the bipartisan United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
Elliott Abrams, who has served in three Republican administrations, most recently acted as the Trump administration’s special envoy to Iran and Venezuela where he was tasked at the time with directing the campaign to replace Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro....
The secret Iran-Contra operation, which took place during Abrams’ time as an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration, involved the funding of anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua using the proceeds from weapon sales to Iran despite a congressional ban on such funding.
Again in his role under former President Ronald Reagan, Abrams was also blasted by a Human Rights Watch report for his attempts in a February 1982 Senate testimony to downplay reports of the massacre of 1,000 people by US-trained-and-equipped military units in the Salvadoran town of El Mozote in December 1981 – the largest mass killing in recent Latin American history. He insisted the numbers of reported victims were “implausible” and “lavished praise” on the military battalion behind the mass killings – stances he doubled down on when they were put on display during a 2019 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing
www.cnn.com
|
On July 05 2023 02:29 oBlade wrote:
I've witnessed numerous women with children intentionally avoid going into men's bathrooms to accompany/help their young sons - sometimes with disastrous results. The motivations may be varied but just food for thought.
Why don't they just take their young sons with the into the womens bathroom? That is absolutely common here. Also men taking their young daughers into the mens bathroom (and on a stall, obviously). Or showers in the public pool.
(I assume "young" means something like "3-6 years old".)
It seems to me as if you are needlessly complicating stuff.
Also, what "disastrous results" have you witnessed?
|
United States41934 Posts
On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 02:13 BlackJack wrote:
@Rayzda yes, I forgot to mention that the other caveat for MTF athletes competing in women’s sports besides them not being allowed to win is that there needs to be locker room accommodations made for women that may not feel comfortable undressing in front of someone with a penis. Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises.
Intersex people exist. Ultimately it's a question of "should we tolerate that people have genitals when using shared spaces in a nonsexual context?" to which the answer is very obviously yes.
If you can't handle the existence of other peoples' genitals then that's a problem that you should work on, not a demand that society must cater to. It's the exact same argument as we had when the army had openly gay soldiers and the homophobes cried "how do you expect our troops to shower naked alongside naked gay men?" as if they might accidentally find themselves sucking a dick. The question of genitals or sexuality or chromosomes is irrelevant to the task of showering or shitting or changing or anything else people do there. You do your business and you get out.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On July 05 2023 02:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Joe Biden is nominating Trump's "Special Representative for Venezuela" (guy from the US directing the failed coup) to the United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. Prior to working for Trump the guy was part of the Iran-Contra scandal, a strong supporter of the US's illegal war in Iraq, and in charge of George Bush's campaign to extend 'democracy' abroad. Other than Kissinger, there's not a whole lot of people with a worse record he could have chosen. Show nested quote +President Joe Biden announced Monday his intention to nominate a former appointee under former President Donald Trump with a controversial past in Latin America to the bipartisan United States Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.
Elliott Abrams, who has served in three Republican administrations, most recently acted as the Trump administration’s special envoy to Iran and Venezuela where he was tasked at the time with directing the campaign to replace Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro....
The secret Iran-Contra operation, which took place during Abrams’ time as an assistant secretary of state in the Reagan administration, involved the funding of anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua using the proceeds from weapon sales to Iran despite a congressional ban on such funding.
Again in his role under former President Ronald Reagan, Abrams was also blasted by a Human Rights Watch report for his attempts in a February 1982 Senate testimony to downplay reports of the massacre of 1,000 people by US-trained-and-equipped military units in the Salvadoran town of El Mozote in December 1981 – the largest mass killing in recent Latin American history. He insisted the numbers of reported victims were “implausible” and “lavished praise” on the military battalion behind the mass killings – stances he doubled down on when they were put on display during a 2019 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing
www.cnn.com
It's almost like you guys never really had a public reckoning about shit that went down during the cold war.
|
On July 05 2023 03:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 02:13 BlackJack wrote:
@Rayzda yes, I forgot to mention that the other caveat for MTF athletes competing in women’s sports besides them not being allowed to win is that there needs to be locker room accommodations made for women that may not feel comfortable undressing in front of someone with a penis. Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Intersex people exist. Ultimately it's a question of "should we tolerate that people have genitals when using shared spaces in a nonsexual context?" to which the answer is very obviously yes. If you can't handle the existence of other peoples' genitals then that's a problem that you should work on, not a demand that society must cater to. It's the exact same argument as we had when the army had openly gay soldiers and the homophobes cried "how do you expect our troops to shower naked alongside naked gay men?" as if they might accidentally find themselves sucking a dick. The question of genitals or sexuality or chromosomes is irrelevant to the task of showering or shitting or changing or anything else people do there. You do your business and you get out.
Like I said this is an argument for why we shouldn’t have men’s and women’s locker rooms in the first place. If women have no place to be afraid of other peoples genitals then just have one locker room for everyone. I suspect a lot of women would be against that though.
|
|
|
United States41934 Posts
On July 05 2023 03:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 03:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can't anyone feel uncomfortable undressing in front of anyone, though? It's not like having a penis means you're going to harass or abuse someone with a vagina, and if you feel uncomfortable because you see a penis or a vagina then you could also just stop looking at it. Cis-women could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of trans-women... or other cis-women... or men... or non-binary people. Straight men could feel uncomfortable undressing in front of gay men or other straight men. Why not just allow locker rooms to have changing stalls with locked doors, similar to fitting rooms at clothing stores, so that anyone who wants privacy while changing can have it? Pretty much every department store I've shopped at has a single, unisex fitting area, rather than a "men's only" fitting room and a "women's only" fitting room. (This is also why I think unisex bathrooms are totally fine as well: because people can do their private, vulnerable business safely behind a locked door, and if an attack was going to happen, the sign in front of the bathroom / locker room isn't going to stop an actual predator anyway.) Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina. Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Intersex people exist. Ultimately it's a question of "should we tolerate that people have genitals when using shared spaces in a nonsexual context?" to which the answer is very obviously yes. If you can't handle the existence of other peoples' genitals then that's a problem that you should work on, not a demand that society must cater to. It's the exact same argument as we had when the army had openly gay soldiers and the homophobes cried "how do you expect our troops to shower naked alongside naked gay men?" as if they might accidentally find themselves sucking a dick. The question of genitals or sexuality or chromosomes is irrelevant to the task of showering or shitting or changing or anything else people do there. You do your business and you get out. Like I said this is an argument for why we shouldn’t have men’s and women’s locker rooms in the first place. If women have no place to be afraid of other peoples genitals then just have one locker room for everyone. I suspect a lot of women would be against that though.
Sure, but we already have both and I have no time to demolish them all right now. So even though it doesn't make sense to segregate on straight sexual preference lines in a non straight population we've already done that.
|
On July 05 2023 03:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 03:16 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 03:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 09:58 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Why even have men and women’s locker rooms at all? Why not allow cisgendered men into womens locker rooms? As you said, just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean he is going to abuse someone with a vagina.
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Intersex people exist. Ultimately it's a question of "should we tolerate that people have genitals when using shared spaces in a nonsexual context?" to which the answer is very obviously yes. If you can't handle the existence of other peoples' genitals then that's a problem that you should work on, not a demand that society must cater to. It's the exact same argument as we had when the army had openly gay soldiers and the homophobes cried "how do you expect our troops to shower naked alongside naked gay men?" as if they might accidentally find themselves sucking a dick. The question of genitals or sexuality or chromosomes is irrelevant to the task of showering or shitting or changing or anything else people do there. You do your business and you get out. Like I said this is an argument for why we shouldn’t have men’s and women’s locker rooms in the first place. If women have no place to be afraid of other peoples genitals then just have one locker room for everyone. I suspect a lot of women would be against that though. Sure, but we already have both and I have no time to demolish them all right now. So even though it doesn't make sense to segregate on straight sexual preference lines in a non straight population we've already done that.
Demolish them? All you need is 2 signs that say “unisex” to replace the 2 signs that say “men’s” and “women’s.” Can be done in a day
|
Why are we even talking about locker rooms, the one thing that is both too large to be affected by most issues of space and also possibly the only type of room that doesnt use a stall system?
Its the nichest part of this and like the only thing that isnt basically insta-solved by just having stalls. Even then, if you converted locker rooms to stalls it'd be mostly solved.
|
United States41934 Posts
On July 05 2023 03:38 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 03:29 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 03:16 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 03:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:On July 04 2023 10:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Yes. That's exactly the point I was making, by having unisex areas with solo private changing rooms/showers for anyone who feels uncomfortable around others (regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.). If you're scared of black people, or men, or gay people, or old people, or anyone else, you can use a safe, private space. You don't even need to explain why you want privacy or which demographic offends/worries you! (Not "you" personally; I mean its general use.) The main problem with this solution is space. If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms. If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Intersex people exist. Ultimately it's a question of "should we tolerate that people have genitals when using shared spaces in a nonsexual context?" to which the answer is very obviously yes. If you can't handle the existence of other peoples' genitals then that's a problem that you should work on, not a demand that society must cater to. It's the exact same argument as we had when the army had openly gay soldiers and the homophobes cried "how do you expect our troops to shower naked alongside naked gay men?" as if they might accidentally find themselves sucking a dick. The question of genitals or sexuality or chromosomes is irrelevant to the task of showering or shitting or changing or anything else people do there. You do your business and you get out. Like I said this is an argument for why we shouldn’t have men’s and women’s locker rooms in the first place. If women have no place to be afraid of other peoples genitals then just have one locker room for everyone. I suspect a lot of women would be against that though. Sure, but we already have both and I have no time to demolish them all right now. So even though it doesn't make sense to segregate on straight sexual preference lines in a non straight population we've already done that. Demolish them? All you need is 2 signs that say “unisex” to replace the 2 signs that say “men’s” and “women’s.” Can be done in a day
But what does that actually achieve over doing nothing and letting people into the one they identify as?
Like I said, we already have two of everything. Even if it doesn’t make sense to be where we are it doesn’t automatically follow that it should be corrected. Our prudish insistence that men can’t be controlled if they’re near naked women and that women are corrupted by the sight of a penis may seem akin to Iranian burka logic to the Norwegians but it doesn’t necessarily mean that I have to spend the next many days changing the signs on all the bathrooms.
It doesn’t make sense that we have cities built on roads either but we already have roads and there’s an inertia to it.
My argument is that it’s not an issue for trans people and therefore we can adapt the existing infrastructure to accommodate them without any issues. And while that same argument could be taken further to get everyone using the same facilities if Thanos snapped half of all facilities out of existence I don’t see why that’s a relevant point. Just because we could all share if it came to that doesn’t mean we absolutely must combine all infrastructure tomorrow.
The same argument can be sound in both the relevant and irrelevant case while resulting in different actions because in the irrelevant case it’s irrelevant.
|
|
|
United States24558 Posts
Visiting family for the holidays, I had a chat with an older family member who is generally open minded but sometimes lacks a modern perspective on emerging social issues. When discussing how gender is different than most people thought a few decades ago, he brought up the concern of someone born with a man's body and with very masculine features declaring themself a female and then winning elite competitions intended for females. I told him that is certainly something the Olympics and top sports leagues need to contend with, but it really isn't relevant to how gender itself works, which is what we were talking about... things like what it means to "identify" a certain way. It seems like, in conversations about gender, we often end up answering "but what about" questions that certainly need to be answered but are non sequiturs.
|
United States41934 Posts
On July 05 2023 03:50 micronesia wrote:
Visiting family for the holidays, I had a chat with an older family member who is generally open minded but sometimes lacks a modern perspective on emerging social issues. When discussing how gender is different than most people thought a few decades ago, he brought up the concern of someone born with a man's body and with very masculine features declaring themself a female and then winning elite competitions intended for females. I told him that is certainly something the Olympics and top sports leagues need to contend with, but it really isn't relevant to how gender itself works, which is what we were talking about... things like what it means to "identify" a certain way. It seems like, in conversations about gender, we often end up answering "but what about" questions that certainly need to be answered but are non sequiturs.
Cis people demand answers to the question of trans competitors but they can't even get their own house in order when it comes to cis competitors with irregular biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutee_Chand
The expectation that every single hypothetical that people can come up with needs to be solved is just not a reasonable hurdle. The exact same bad faith argument style is used everywhere that a line can be drawn with one side insisting that unless the other can exactly define where and why the line must be drawn in a way that answers any and all hypotheticals then their opinion can be discarded.
It's a cheap rhetorical trick that is so often used by talking heads on opinion news that reasonable people sometimes repeat those bad faith arguments it in good faith. The solution isn't to engage with it but rather to explain the trick so that the person can understand why it's not reasonable to demand an absolute and comprehensive solution to everything all the time. We don't have a comprehensive solution to the problem of cis women competing in women's sports but everyone is good with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
